Becoming Architecture: An Embodiment of the Architectural Process

1

2

3

4

5

06

Introduction; As architects, as designers and as people, we are the authors of our “own designs, constructed through a self-conscious decision process – an intentional selection of ideas”.1 How such a process can be interacted with and applied as a working methodology or framework within design and more specifically the practice of architecture is pertinent to the development of the individual as a creative.

Currently, there is a perception, (which I share), that all too often the process embodied through architectural creation is hidden or designed out of a final proposition. In this way, the more that architecture is “removed from the contexts of [the] life-activity in which [it is] produced and used, - the more [it] appear[s] as [a] static object of disinterested contemplation […] the more, too, the process disappears or is hidden behind the product, the finished object”.2 Since the creative process can be defined as “qualitative problem solving”,3 then how can any architectural outcome obtain any subsequent value if it cannot be seen to be solving any of the problems it is required to solve, if the process is so recognisably detached from the proposition.

Therefore, I am primarily undertaking this study to determine how best to create what this paper will define as ‘effective’ architecture that has an authenticity and respect for where, how and why it has been generated or derived; its process of becoming.

I believe that reflecting on the creative process of architectural design through a philosophical enquiry will help me to understand my individual working process further in order to conceptualise an ‘ethical’ way of practicing. In turn, this will further facilitate my ability to practice in an honest and authentic manner. Furthermore, I intend to interrogate what this paper will recognise as ‘dishonest’ and ‘deceitful’ architecture; whereby architectural form takes precedence over the process it should have been derived from, to understand how and why this should change.

Finally, I propose to expose whether the utilisation of the ‘embodied mind’ within an architectural design process translates to the creation of a more viable experiential and immersive form of architectural practice.

1 Ingold, Tim, The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, (London: Routledge, 2010), p. 175.

2 Ibid, p. 346.

3 Ecker, David. W, ‘The Artistic Process as Qualitative Problem Solving’ in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Spring, 1963), pp. 283-290.

07

08

09

design (verb) 1. to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created) : to create the plans, drawings, etc, that show how (something) will be made.4 2. to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose.5 3. to think of or plan something, in your mind, such as a plan.6

Following the introduction, this section will begin to expose what it means to ‘design’ and more specifically, what it means to design within the practice of architecture.

It will attempt to unpack perceptions of what design actually is and how it affects different disciplines whilst maintaining the focus of engaging with a dialogue against an architectural framework. In such a general sense, designing can be observed as a universal aspect of human practice; yet the ways in which it is carried out, and the subsequent lessons that are learned vary considerably through different practice, society and culture.7 To establish the consequences of design within architectural practice, the enquiry will begin to philosophically situate theories and outlooks on design in order to reflect on the authenticity and honesty of both practice and education in the current climate. Since it could be said that there are “no neat set of frames of reference, no ready rules”8 for the production of architecture and design, then why can alternative perceptions and working methodologies not be transformed and imposed upon one another as a morphology of design advancing each individual practice. In this way, design is treated as a homogenous compendium of knowledge, rules and laws that are employed to build environments and transform lives.9

4 Merriam-Webster, (2015), Full Definition of Design, Available: http://www.merriam-.com/dictionary/design? show=0&t=1420374798. Last accessed 4th Jan 2015.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Otto, Ton and Smith, Rachel Charlotte, ‘Design Anthropology: A Distinct Style of Knowing’ in Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice. ed. by Gunn, Wendy, Otto, Ton and Smith, Rachel Charlotte, (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), pp.

1-32, p. 1.

8 Goodman, Nelson, Ways of Worldmaking, (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1978), p. 3.

9 Ingold, Tim, Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, (London: Routledge, 2013), p. (outside back cover).

10

11

For example;

“

We press into service what we find around us to suit our current purposes, we proceed to modify those things to our own design so that they better serve these purposes, but at the same time our objectives – or adaptive requirements – also change so that the modified objects are subsequently co-opted”.10

As a transparent foundation for this analysis,Tim Ingold’s principle theories on ‘design through making’11 whereby perceptive ‘makers’ have a particular correspondence with the world and its active materials in a progressive production of objects that “continually answer to, or ‘correspond’ with one another in the generation of form”.12 Conceived from the practical engagements within the world that begin to fabricate Ingold’s ‘dwelling perspective’ on the perception of the environment, his ontological notion of ‘thinking through making’ states that nothing is ever finished; rather, every artefact can be understood as a ‘waystation’ on its way to finding something else.13 In this way, the process of creation can be appreciated as a series of making in which each “thought is just a passing moment”,14 an interwoven ephemeral notion that is pressed into reality.

As an embodiment of creative practice, Ingold further recognises “the mutual involvement of people and materials in [the] environment”15 as an interactive meshwork comprised from “temporal lines of becoming”.16,17 Each of these lines can be personified as a collection of beings, artefacts and materials where to pick up a handful of these lines and take them further is to create a knot within this existential model for design. This active transformation of reality is “an ongoing

10 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 176.

11 Tim Ingold’s ‘Making’ concentrates intensely on anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture as four

reciprocal disciplines.

12 Ibid, p. (outside back cover).

13 Ingold, Tim, Institute for Northern Culture. (2013). Ingold - Thinking through Making. [Online Video]. 31 October.

Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygne72-4zyo. [Accessed: 29 December 2014].

14 Ibid.

15 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 347.

16 Ingold, T, Making, p. 132.

17 Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guttari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, (London: Continuum, 2004), p. 224-225.

12

13

14

binding together of material flows and sensory awareness”.18 Ingold describes each knot, not as a closed structure, but as “an open one, where every strand that is bound together in the knot is trailing off somewhere else where it might get bounded up with something else in other knots”.19 If Ingold’s view of this experiential and holistic approach towards design can be taken as an exemplary model within architecture, then the subsequent aim of the investigation is to closely investigate how the present day perception of design compares against it. This can be formulated around the critical viewpoint of Jeremy Till, where ‘Architecture Depends’ begins to construct an analysis that creates links back to pedagogy and how design is contextualised within architectural education.

Here, anecdotal evidence is exercised to outline “the way that architecture has avoided engagement with the uncertainties of the world through a retreat into an autonomous realm”,20 where many now see the architectural design process as ‘dishonest’ and ‘hidden’.

Working within such pedagogical environments, Till begins to explore the common misconception of the façade of imagery on display at end of year degree shows; if one were to look past this, one would find “a void, a political and ethical void in which the underlying processes and their social detachment are left unexamined”.21 This further emphasises that the value of what it means to design within an architectural framework and the respective working process has been neglected and the immediate effects of this notion have lead to the production of ineffective and unresponsive built architectural proposition. Here;

“

The stasis of the underlying system is left undisturbed because we are distracted by the speed of change on the surface.

Because things look different from year to year, from school to school, from unit to unit, the frantic display of architectural education suggests progress is being made, whereas in fact the core is left unchallenged”.22

Here, the limits of visual methods in the creation of a meaningful environment demand attention; it suggests that students are becoming slaves to the fashions of imagery. In this way, our built environment is quickly becoming a stage set due to the failure of visually dominating modes of design to successfully embody the social,

18 Ingold, T, Thinking through Making.

19 Ibid.

20 Till, Jeremy, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge [USA]: MIT Press, 2009), p. 5.

21 Ibid, p. 15.

22 Awan, Nishat, Schneider, Tatjana and Till, Jeremy, Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture, (London: Routledge, 2011), p. 46.

15

cultural and human processes that convey their very making. 23, 24 & 25 Furthermore, moving away from education and into the realm of practice, it seems as though architecture, and its portrayal as a profession in the public eye, is becoming more and more about ‘form’, ‘image’ and ‘brand’, where the status of the architect takes precedence over the honesty and efficiency of the architecture, and less and less about the pragmatism and consequences of the architecture itself.

All too often, so-called ‘starchitects’ such as Zaha Hadid and Frank Gehry are finding their work criticised in journals26, 27&28 for the lack of consideration given to the contextual implications of their designs, where the ostentatious ‘form making’ and ‘imagery’ embodies the very lack of engagement with any working process. Here;

“

To argue that there is not a direct […] link […] between aesthetics and ethics, is not to argue for the dismissal of the role of aesthetics and tectonics, but to more realistically understand the role they play in the context of the much wider set of social conditions to which architecture contributes”.29

23 Tidwell, Philip, ‘Place, Memory and the Architectural Image’, in Archipelagpo: Essays on Architecture. ed. by Peter MacKeith, (Helsinki: Rakennustieto, 2006), p. 154.

24 Humphreys, Andrew, What Have You Done for me Lately? (An event discussing the recent work from Plymouth University’s School of Architecture, and the recent rise in its status), Plymouth University, 26th February, 2014.

25 Tidwell, P, ‘Place, Memory and the Architectural Image’, p. 151.

26 See criticism and petition against Hadid’s recent proposal for Tokyo’s 2020 Olympic Stadium in Tokyo:

1. Howarth, Dan. Dezeen Magazine. (2014). Zaha Hadid says Tokyo stadium criticism is “embarrassing” for Japanese architects. Available: http://www.dezeen.com/2014/12/08/zaha-hadid-tokyo-2020-olympic-sta dium-criticism-japanese-architects/. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

2. Change.org. (2014). Petition against Zaha Hadid’s Tokyo Olympic Stadium. Available: https://www. change .org/p/%E6%96%87%E9%83%A8%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6%E7%9C%81-%E6%97%A5% E6%9C%AC%E3%82%B9%E3%83%9D%E3%83%BC%E3%83%84%E6%8C%AF%E8%88%88 %E3%82%BB%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC-%E7%A5%9E%E5%AE%AE%E. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

27 See the contentious response to Hadid’s statement concerning her role and responsibilities as an architect.

1. Quirk, Vanessa. Arch Daily. (2014). Zaha Hadid on Worker Deaths in Qatar: “It’s Not My Duty As an Architect”.

Available: http://www.archdaily.com/480990/zaha-hadid-on-worker-deaths-in-qatar-it-s-not-my-duty- as-an-architect/. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

28 See Frank Gehry’s rise as a ‘starchitect’.

1. Manaugh, Geoff. Gizmondo. (2014). Frank Gehry Is Still the World’s Worst Living Architect. Available: http:// gizmodo.com/frank-gehry-is-still-the-worlds-worst-living-architect-1523113249. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

29 Awan, Schneider and Till, Spatial Agency, p. 37.

16

“

The more objects are removed from the contexts of lifeactivity in which they are produced and used – the more they appear as static objects of disinterested contemplation […]– the more, too, the process disappears or is hidden behind the product, the finished object. Thus we […] look for the meaning of the object in the idea it expressed rather than in the current activity to which it […] belongs”.30

It is as a result of these high-profile, hylomorphic31 examples of ‘form driven’ architecture that the state of the profession is becoming increasingly concerned with the ‘imagery’ of its architecture rather than its role within a wider context.

This seduction of imagery32 seems to be upheld by the “curse of architectural photography”,33 which as Frank Duffy34 outlined, is all about the wonderfully composed image, the image that wins awards and the image that careers are then based upon.35 By returning back to the influence this has on developing students within the academic world, this is reinforced by the presentation of the Presidents Medal awards, which today seem only to be granted in recognition of ‘beautiful imagery’.36 Patrick Schumacher wrote on the matter that the awards are based upon;

“

The invention of scenarios that are supposedly more interesting than the challenges actually posed by contemporary reality. […] Accordingly, the resultant works are statements or allegories rather than designs. This is evidenced by the emphasis on evocative, atmospheric imagery, with little or no demonstration of how the visualised spaces organise and articulate social life processes and institutions”.37

30 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 346.

31 A ‘hylomorphic’ model of creation is a way of understanding the material world according to conception of

matter and form, which contrasts Ingold’s views on the matter and tends to perceive material as static, finished products of preconceived human thought.

32 Ferguson, George, PADS Lecture Series 2014/2015, Plymouth University, 26th January, 2015.

33 Brown, Robert and Moreau, Denitza, ‘Finding Your Way in the Dark’, Brighton University: Shared Visions

Conference, (2002). (Available: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/palatine/shared-vi sions-conference-brown-paper.pdf. [Last accessed 06th April 2014.])

34 Frank Duffy president of the RIBA from 1993-95.

35 Brown and Moreau, ‘Finding Your Way in the Dark’.

36 Pallister, James. Architects’ Journal. (2012). Next year’s President’s Medals should reward real life briefs.

Available: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/next-years-presidents-medals-should-reward-real-life- briefs/8626520.article. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

37 Schumacher, Patrick. The Architectural Review. (2012). Schumacher Slams British Architectural Education.

Available: http://www.architectural-review.com/view/overview/ar-exclusive-schumacher-slams-british-archi tectural-education/8625659.article. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

17

18

However, Peter Zumthor’s experiential basis for architecture as a vehicle for design can be taken as a counterpoint that can begin to question how such a processes can be re-instated and re-valued in the production of an honest architecture. His philosophical outlook articulated in ‘Thinking Architecture’ is explored through a blend of an experiential biography against physical ‘things’, through which a progressive design process is exposed via a transformation of reality. He states:

“

“

The strength of a good design lies in ourselves and in our ability to perceive the world with both emotion and reason”.38

The roots of our understanding of architecture lie in our childhood, in our youth; they lie in our biography. Students have to learn to work consciously with their personal biographical experiences of architecture. Their allotted tasks are devised to set this process in motion”.39

In this way, the tendency to disregard the process in place of external form and objectified imagery is eradicated. As a substitute for “creating mere objects of visual seduction, architecture relates, mediates and projects meanings”.40 “It directs our consciousness back to the world and towards our own sense of self ”.41 Now, the creative work of the architect is directly engaged with the body and existential experience,42 which ultimately achieves far superior levels of individual engagement and a greater appreciation for who, why, where and how the architecture has come into being.

The final part of this chapter will engage in a dialogue around design and making, and the experiences and practices encountered by Michael Pollan in ‘A Place of My Own’. In this biographical journey of construction, we are able to observe how these increased levels of personal engagement interact with his own unique interpretation of building to provide a case study into what it means to design-build on an individual scale, and the way that a ‘narrative’ or ‘line of inquiry’ materialises from working in such a way. As “not so much a how-to-do-it than a how-to-

38 Zumthor, Peter, Thinking Architecture (Third Expanded Edition), (Basel: Birkhauser, 2010), p. 65.

39 Ibid, p. 65.

40 Pallasmaa, Juhani, The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses (Third Edition), (Chichester: Wiley, 2012), p13.

41 Ibid, p13.

42 Ibid.

19

20

think about it book”,43 ‘A Place of My Own’ speculates towards an approach by the designer that is unique to the individual and specific on giving emphasis and meaning the intent of the design. Arguably as a discretely unique process, it cannot be replicated by anyone else, nor can it deliver the same weight of purpose or resolution.

“

Not just a room, it was a building of my own I wanted, an outpost of solitude pitched somewhere in the landscape rather than in the house. And so I began to wonder, […] where in the world could that part of the dream have come from?”44

If our buildings are taken to be “like nests or burrows, the outcome of a kind of evolutionary process fitting our bodies and desires to the facts of our environment”,45 then in this case, through the architecture of daydreams our architecture is free to be whatever we want it to be. It is through this model of ‘daydreaming’ that allows the designer to provoke the imagination for answers to questions that will help him refine their architectural position on a project in order to establish a line of enquiry.

“The deepest roots of such dream[s] are invariably obscure, a tangle of memories and circumstances, things read in books and pictures glimpsed in magazines”46 that enable the inception of the narrative of a building to come into being. Working in such a way within both education and practice, architects are invited to take on independent lines of inquiry, through which they can begin to embrace, understand and value design processes however they may materialise.47

43 Pollan, Michael, A Place of My Own: The Architecture of Daydreams, (New York: Penguin Group US, 2008), p. xi.

44 Ibid, p. 8.

45 Ibid, p. xii.

46 Ibid, p. 8.

47 Humphreys, A, What Have You Done for me Lately?

21

22

23

creative (adjective) 1. having or showing an ability to make new things or think of new ideas.48 2. using the ability to make or think of new things : involving the process by which new ideas, stories, etc, are created.49 3. done in an unusual and often dishonest way.50

There is a collective recognition amongst architects that “the complete building stands as the crystallisation of an original design concept”.51 In this sense, creativity is understood as the capacity to produce things that are original and valuable where the value condition of these things is considered to have been generated from an effective process, thereby ruling out cases of worthless originality. 52 Can this investigation, therefore, progress to unveil an approach to design whereby the creative application is exposed and consciously recognised as an active design tool? If creativity can be further defined as the ability to conceive new ideas or things, then can it be said that one’s creative involvement in the world and their engagement with a given process can determine the scope of an ever-moving front of a creative advance into novelty?53,54 Since creativity can be perceived to encompass such a wide range of activity, it can be difficult to distinguish exactly when we are engaging with a creative process.This implication has provoked the investigation to initiate a discussion on the ‘feeling’ of creativity and how imagination and intuition are critical elements within the engagement of a creative process. Here, I will try to understand how the creative mind operates by cross-examining philosophical, psychological and anthropological findings to begin to breakdown how and where the embodiment of creativity comes into an architectural process.

As a progressive line of enquiry, this section will continue to interrogate Ingold’s ‘dwelling perspective’, where an expansion on his perception of design will help to gain an understanding of how imagination through improvisation can achieve creativity through an existence within a perceived world. This synthesis would have to begin with a conception of the human being, “not as a composite entity made

48 Merriam-Webster, (2015), Full Definition of Creative, Available: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ creative. Last accessed 4th Jan 2015.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 Ingold, T, Making, p. 47.

52 Gaut, Berys, ‘The Philosophy of Creativity’ in Philosophy Compass, Volume 5, Issue 12, pp. 1034–1046, December 2010, p. 1039.

53 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 19.

54 Whitehead, Alfred North, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929).

24

up of separable but complementary parts, such as body, mind and culture, but rather a singular locus of creative growth within a continually unfolding field of relationships”.55 So to derive an act of creativity through Ingold’s findings would be in the characterisation of this ‘creative growth’.

If then we look back to Ingold’s ‘meshwork’ analogy, we can define an interaction with the lines of this meshwork, (expressed as beings, artefacts and materials), as the moment in which one is acting creatively. In this way, ‘thinking through making’, and working in reality, the craftsman, the designer or in this case the architect is someone who has to follow the material; who has to bind his or her own life, a biographical perception of the environment, to the lines of the material they work with.56

“

Understood as a realm of discourse, meaning and value inhabiting the collective consciousness, culture is conceived to hover over the material world but not to permeate it. […] culture wraps itself around the universe of material things, shaping and transforming their outward surfaces without ever penetrating their interiority. Thus the particular surface of every artefact participates in the impenetrable surface of materiality itself as it is enveloped by the cultural imagination”.57

These interactions can be further defined where, rather than projecting form onto a material in a situation where we think we already know what it is that we are making there is a progressive sequence, a ‘movement of the imagination’, that allows the maker to read creativity forwards and learn from the ‘gestural’ productions of these creative interactions.58 & 59 Here, “the creativity in ‘thinking through making’ lies in the improvisation rather than innovation”.60 The maker is forced into a situation where they must consult their imagination in order to creatively problem solve in a cumulative process of transforming reality and finding the essence and identity of the project in hand. Working in this manner prevents the maker from leaving out the creativity of the processes that define the creation of the final outcome.61 The product of such a process is instead allowed to develop organically where it becomes “the result of varying amounts of intention, pragmatism, accident and

55 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 4-5.

56 Ingold, T, Thinking through Making.

57 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 340-341.

58 Ingold, T, Thinking through Making.

59 Ingold, T, Making, p. 126.

60 Ingold, T, Thinking through Making.

61 Ibid.

25

26

ambition”62 and the movements of material and awareness feel their way ahead into conception in real time.63 This allows the design to achieve its effect “not primarily through the visible, but through a reinscription of the invisible processes that make the visible possible”.64 Assuming that the previously described engagements can be perceived as the embodiment of creativity, of a conscious recognition of an active application of ‘being’ and ‘feeling’ creative, then these moments of improvisation can be distilled as: when the architect is working with “the contingencies of a given situation and using their embedded knowledge, skills, and imagination in an open and curious way in order to contribute to the making of new spatial possibilities”.65 Since the nature of improvisation gestures towards an intuitive implementation of the imagination where modes of creation become instinctive of the individual against a previously digested set of architectural conditions, then they continue to become intrinsic interactions where “knowledge becomes part of who we are and how we interact with the world around us”.66 This helps to ensure that, with respect to our social, cultural and political positing towards a project, our architectural identity is able to engage in a wider discourse. In such a way, it could be said that creativity has ‘organic’ and ‘primitive’ origins, for;

“

Just as organic form is generated in the unfolding of the morphogenetic field, so the form of the artefact evolves within […] a field of forces. Both kinds of field cut across the developing interface between the object (organism or artefact) and an environment which, in the case of the artefact, critically includes its ‘maker’. Where the organism engages its environment in the process of ontogenetic development, the artefact engages its maker in a pattern of skilled activity”.67

This is to say, (in terms of Ingold), that “the difference between making and growing is by no means as obvious as we might have thought”,68 which softens the very distinction between what defines an artefact, in this case the architecture and what

62 Talbot, Richard, ‘Drawing Connections in Writing on Drawing: Essays on Drawing, Practice and Research. ed. by Steve Garner, (Bristol: Intellect, 2008.), p. 56.

63 Ingold, T, Thinking through Making.

64 Awan, Schneider and Till, Spatial Agency, p. 41.

65 Till, J, Architecture Depends, p. 15.

66 Ingold, T, Thinking through Making.

67 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 345.

68 Ibid, p. 339.

27

defines living things.69 If then, from the process that it generated, the architecture is allowed to become a ‘living’ and ‘progressing’ entity, rather than an image frozen in time − is the architecture compartmentalised as an artefact or a living thing? I would argue here that architecture blurs the line between the two and enters a realm where it can be though of as a ‘living artefact’; the co-evolution of innovative architecture can be as much a catalyst for the progression of cultural, social and political systems as it is an article of the built environment. 70 Progressing from the argument surrounding the making and growth of artefacts, such intuitive and primitive origins of design gesture towards an ‘organic basis’ for architecture as a reproductive activity that can be constituted as a vehicle for creativity within an architectural process. Through Vygotsky’s ‘Imagination and Creativity in Childhood’ the enquiry can investigate this essence of creativity and explore the efficacy of the cognitive methods that employ the imagination in the process of being creative. In far more of a ‘primitive’, ‘raw’ and ‘instinctive’ state, this will breakdown whether a loose sense of ‘play’ can be translated to architecture to instigate individual creativity and response. Vygotsky states;

“

A child’s play very often is just an echo of what saw […]

A child’s play is not simply a reproduction of what he has experienced, but a creative reworking of the impressions he has acquired”.71

This practice of unconscious introspection as a creative resource concerns itself with the application of experience and imagination through the use of image and memory. For, with further reference to Zumthor, we carry images that we have been influenced by around with us and it is these images that we can re-appraise for further examination and transformation.72 As a re-interpretation of qualitative experiential data, the brain not only stores and retrieves our previous experience, but combines and creatively reworks elements of past experience and uses them to generate new propositions and behaviour.73 In the creation of the imaginative atmospheres of play, children could be said to be projecting out “images from inside themselves, made up of memories”74 as “part of a continuously unfolding narrative of the human body’s encounter with the materiality

69 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 345.

70 Schumacher, P, Schumacher Slams British Architectural Education.

71 Vygotsky, Lev. S, ‘Imagination and Creativity in Childhood’ in Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1 (January–February 2004), p. 11.

72 Zumthor, P, Thinking Architecture, p. 67.

73 Vygotsky, L, ‘Imagination and Creativity in Childhood’, p. 9.

74 Rawson, Philip, Seeing Through Drawing, (London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1979), p. 7.

28

29

30

of the world”.75 Arguably this is comparable in principle with experienced designers; for as Phillip Rawson states the “difference is only of degree, in the density”76 of the proposition. Where the purely imaginative constructions of children remain, to coin another of Rawson’s phrases, “only one concept thick”,77 the creative ensembles formulated and perused by architects exhibit many layers of meaning and tangible reinforcement.78 Here, the prospective inhabitants of such architecture can read the layers of the process of its making, allowing them to “follow it through for themselves, looking with it rather than at it”.79 Now, if we continue to look specifically at the reconstruction of cognitive and experiential phenomena with reference to image and memory, then we can shift the attention back to Peter Zumthor’s ‘Thinking Architecture’, where the concrete, sensuous quality of our inner image helps us not to get lost in arid, abstract theoretical assumption,80 but rather to focus on the realities of tangible architectural qualities. Here, we are reminded not only of the detrimental obsession with objectified imagery and form making discussed previously, but that the time spent working directly with the perceptions and flesh of the world is the best antidote for creative abstraction.81 This hypothesis works on the basis that;

“

We carry images of works of architecture by which we have been influenced around with us. We can re-invoke these images in our mind’s eye and re-examine them. But this does not yet make a new design, new architecture. Every design needs new images. Our “old” images can only help us find new ones”.82

Here, I must explicitly differentiate that the effectiveness of the imagery in this instance is concerned with the way that they are interrogated through the imagination, as opposed to the widespread fixation with form making. What must be noticed is that it is the unique, experiential knowledge base every architect

75 Hale, Jonathan, ‘Gottfried Semper’s Primitive Hut: Duration, Construction and Self-Creation’, in Primitive:

Original Matters in Architecture. ed. by Jo Odgers, Flora Samuel and Adam Sharr, (London: Routledge, 2006), Pg. 61.

76 See Ingold making reference to Philip Rawson’s “Seeing Through Drawing”.

1. Ingold, T, Making, p. 127.

77 Rawson, P, Seeing Through Drawing, p. 8.

78 Ingold, T, Making, p. 127.

79 Rosenberg, Terry, ‘New Beginnings and Monstrous Births: Notes towards an appreciation of ideational drawing’ in Writing on Drawing: Essays on Drawing Practice and Research. ed. by Steve Garner, (Bristol: Intellect, 2008.), p. 123.

80 Zumthor, P, Thinking Architecture, p. 67.

81 Pollan, M, A Place of My Own, p. 25.

82 Zumthor, P, Thinking Architecture, p. 67.

31

possesses which is used as a frame of reference, as part of an underlying cumulative process.83 In correspondence to this, Zumthor continues to expand by stating that;

“

Thinking in images when designing is always directed towards the whole. By its very nature, the images is always the whole of the imagined reality: wall and floor, ceiling and materials, the moods of light and colour of a room, for example. […] Often however, they are not simply there, these visual elements of the image, when we start on a design and try to form an image of the desired object. At the beginning of the design process, the image is usually incomplete. So we try repeatedly to rearticulate and clarify our theme, to add the missing parts to our imagined picture. Or to put it another way: we design”.84

There is evidence here, then, that imagination is particularly “well suited, that is, suited of its nature, to be the vehicle of active creativity – to be that faculty we employ in being actively creative”.85 In correspondence to architecture, Zumthor’s model articulates how “the conjunction here of practicality and imagination is important, because it […] asks [architects], to be at the same time realist and visionary”.86 This ideology can help to define the movement, as is necessary with Ingold’s theory of ‘thinking through making’, of an architectural process, whereby the construction of a purposeful built environment, consisting of layers of meaningful architecture is derived through the dialogue with a spectrum of pertinent working processes.

83 Willenbrock, Laura. L, ‘An undergraduate Voice in Architectural Education’ in Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy. ed. by Thomas. A Dutton, (New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1991), Pg. 111.

84 Zumthor, P, Thinking Architecture, p. 67.

85 Gaut, B, ‘Philosophy of Creativity’, p. 1043.

86 Awan, Schneider and Till, Spatial Agency, p. 41.

32

33

34

35

process (noun) 1. a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a particular result.87 2. a series of changes that happen naturally.88 3. a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner.89

Through the theories of Ingold, which have been supported and consolidated by the views of Till, Zumthor and Vygotsky amongst others, the dynamic of the enquiry has already begun to establish an attitude towards architecture that places a particular value on the process behind its conception. The previous chapters have recognised that an accumulative or generative design process is necessary to sustain a level of resolution within an output that celebrates the process of its making.This is valued and understood not only within the conception of a far more authentic and honest architectural proposition, but also in the progression of the identity of the individual and their development as an architect.

Since there is obviously a value to the creative activity and the collaborative working processes that this investigation has bought to attention, the questions that prevail are why do they continue to remain absent in present educational models and so much of the work currently publicised as ‘good architecture’, and how can they be understood and respected as viable stages of a productive working process with respect to those within other creative fields?

In order to further progress this understanding of ‘process’ with regards to the way ‘design’ and ‘creativity’ have been discussed in relation to architecture, I will continue to anchor the discussion back to Ingold’s epistemological90 model and how his theory on ‘the art of inquiry’ will help to establish that “learning in practice is a creative process”.91

87 Merriam-Webster, (2015), Full Definition of Process, Available: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ process. Last accessed 4th Jan 2015.

88 Ibid.

89 Dictionary.com. (2015). Define Process. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/process. Last accessed 4th Jan 2015.

90 Where epistemology it is the study of knowledge and justified belief, which questions what knowledge is

and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired.

91 International Cognition & Culture Institute. (2010). Tim Ingold - To Learn is to Improvise a Movement Along a

Way of Life. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaaPaK-N5o. [Accessed: 26th January 2015].

36

“

In the art of inquiry, the conduct of thought goes along with, and continually answers to, the fluxes and flows of the materials with which we work. These materials think in us, as we think through them. Here, every work is an experiment: not in the natural scientific sense of testing a preconceived hypothesis, […] but in the sense of prising an opening and following where it leads. You try things out and see what happens”.92

In this instance, such an approach to working creatively can be considered as a generation of knowledge. This is a knowledge that is not transmitted to us by external forces, but rather is grown from within, through a sequence of creative engagements; an alignment of movements through a co-ordination of action and perception.93 In terms of understanding this as a philosophical process, each of the creative interactions that were explored in the previous chapter can be assumed not only to supply a certain amount of perceptive knowledge surrounding the nature of the project, but also to advance one’s architectural journey from one project to the next. Ingold’s findings become a critical practice whereby through each sequential interaction, the maker is able to advance the understanding of their design and their position within the field of practice.

Throughout his research, this is a principle that Ingold refers to as ‘knowing from the inside’ which has “a narrative quality, in the sense that every moment, like every line in a story, grows rhythmically out of the one before and lays the groundwork for the next.”94 In this sense, the process of making, the fabrication of an artefact in the physical world, can be used as an tool for understanding a narrative.The conception and strength of this narrative lies in the composition of various ‘agencies’ or ‘strands’, where, as a poetic construction that has similarities to the metaphor, the narrative is defined as a conjoining of terms that thereby offers an indirect articulation of the enigmatic facets of a design.95 By aligning this model to an architectural framework we might begin to see that the validity of the design and its level of resolution is enhanced through the creativity of the productive processes that bring them into being. In such a way, ‘making’ becomes the term for engaging in creativity, which is ultimately the embodiment of the ‘thinking’ behind the conception of a drawing, model or prose. Since the investigation has established that to behave creatively is to occupy the imagination, it could be said with reference to Zumthor and Vygotsky, that the focus of modes ‘making’ that exercise the imagination is to create a physical point of reference. Here,

92 Ingold, T, Making, p. 6-7.

93 Ingold, T, To Improvise a Movement Along a Way of Life.

94 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 347.

95 Pelletier, Louise and Pérez-Gómez, Alberto, Architecture, Ethics, and Technology, (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s -Press - MQUP, 1994), p. 209.

37

38

39

making seeks to make visible, to ‘hold in place’ the intentionality of the imagination in order for it to be epistemologically absorbed and learned from against the agencies that constitute the continually fluctuating underlying narrative.

To continually strive to absorb knowledge and learn form the work we produce as part of an ontological process is something that not only aligns with the production of architecture, but with numerous creative fields. There is a current tendency to compartmentalise one’s interests where literature is literature, painting is painting, and architecture is architecture, 96 but in these latter stages of the enquiry, the intention is to begin to expose foreign creative practices and more specifically to understand how an architectural process can be situated amongst these.

On this topic, in ‘On the Creation of Art’, Monroe Beardsley makes assessments on a variety of strategies and frameworks that set out to embody a ‘definitive’ creative process with respect to fine art. The study will now interrogate the ways that artists engage with a creative process in order to understand what elements have the potential to be transferable to architecture. Beardsley is clear that in order to be successful, the process must be a generative one whereby its potential takes precedence over the respective conclusion. He states;

“

I do not plan to argue for a single creative pattern, but to show how, in the absence of any such general pattern, each individual process that eventuates in a work of art generates its own direction and momentum. For the crucial controlling power at every point is the particular stage or condition of the unfinished work itself, the possibilities it presents, and the developments it permits”.97

By reappraising drawing as a mode of making that, in Beardsley’s terms generates its own direction and momentum through the practice of fine art, we find that the basic drawing unit for the communication of our ideas and analogies is the mark.

Drawing is at the heart of design work, where ‘mark making’ serves as a way of thinking that has the ability to “capture fleeting ideas on paper where they can be better understood, further analysed, […] refined and negotiated”.98 In this way, and on an ontological basis, marks are normally conceived as gestures by virtue of the hand of the maker and leave traces as a depiction towards the inner movements of

96 Vieira, Álvaro Siza, ‘Long Section - Álvaro Siza Vieira’ in Mark Magazine, Issue 46, 2014, p. 181.

97 Beardsley, Monroe. C, ‘On the Creation of Art’ in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 23, No. 3, (Spring, 1965), p. 297.

98 Henderson, Kathryn, ‘Achieving legitimacy: visual discourses in engineering design and green building code development’ in Building Research & Information, Volume 35, Issue 1, (2007), pp. 6-17, p. 8.

40

41

the mind.99 & 100 These ‘traces of movement’ are left behind as ‘leading’ or ‘governing’ lines,101 casting our ideas into the future, where “artists have repeatedly gone over their drawn marks, […] revising them, rubbing them out and redrawing”102 as part of a self-sufficient, dynamic process.

It is through this mode of creation, this type of process that we have to read such works less in terms of the preconceived projection of form, more because it is these traces and marks that matter.103 “Indeed, no drawing that suppresses its marks entirely and loses their rhythms, can ever amount to much”;104 and so would suggest that nothing is learned from the process and the exercise can be considered completely unprofitable. This is concurrent with the way Ingold describes that;

“

This is a matter not of predetermining final forms of things and all the steps needed to get there, but of opening up a path and improvising a passage. To foresee, in this sense, is to see into the future, not to project a future state of affairs in the present; it is to look where you are going, not to fix an end point”.105

Whether in architecture or any creative practice, we can draw the conclusion that to learn through the process of making, the destination of the creation must be unknown or at least out-of-focus in one way or another. In such a way, the doing or making becomes worthwhile when the perceived result is of a nature that its qualities, (as perceived by the maker), have been controlled through the questions of production.106 However, in this approach to design, the maker has to be willing to employ what David Pye has understood as ‘workmanship of risk’,107 where “the ‘risk’ usually implies the mental uncertainty of advancing on untrodden paths”.108 On a more architectural basis, “the risk is directed [by] the architect’s own persona, values,

99

Rawson, P, Seeing Through Drawing, p. 22.

100 Ingold, T, Making, p. 126.

101 Ruskin, John, The Elements of Drawing: In Three Letters to Beginners, (London: Smith, Elder, & Company, 1857), pp. 119-120.

102 Rawson, P, Seeing Through Drawing, p. 27.

103 Ibid, p. 29.

104 Ibid.

105 Ingold, T, Making, p. 69.

106 Dewey, John, The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-1953, Volume 10: 1934, Art as Experience, ed. by Boydston, Jo Ann and Simon, Harriet Furst, (Illinois: SIU Press, 2008), p. 55.

107 Pye, David, The Nature and Art of Workmanship, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 4-8.

108 Pallasmaa, Juhani, The Thinking Hand; Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture, (Chichester: Wiley, 2009), p. 72.

42

43

beliefs and ambitions”109 in a way that addresses the self-identity of the individual as an architect and as a professional.110 This is an intuitive working methodolgy that Finnish architect Alvar Aalto identified with, stating;

“

I forget the whole maze of problems for a while, […] I simply draw by instinct, not architectural syntheses, but what are sometimes quite childlike, and in this way, on a childlike basis, the main idea gradually takes shape, a kind of universal substance that helps me bring the numerous contradictory components into harmony”.111

Aalto’s citation of his own creative process quickly returns to re-identify a somewhat primitive perception of design and the imagination. Positioned around entering a ‘childlike’ state of mind, this makes further reference to Vygotsky and a primitive use of ‘playfulness’ in design that helps to inform the risks taken within design projects that enable the maker to work “mindfully in a way that feels genuine and present, allowing for more spontaneity in [their] responses”.112 If this can be understood with reference to the creation of architecture, then we can not only see the cultural and social benefits of investing the time to embody the implications of a design project, but in terms of the outcome, we can also understand that it “is the crystallisation of activity within a regional field, its regularities of form [that embody] the regularities of movement that gave rise to it”.113 This ensures that the architecture is an honest reflection of its process, a kind of vital truth that is always expressive of the past history and present action of the thing.114

109 Pallasmaa, J, The Thinking Hand, p. 72.

110 Ibid.

111 Aalto, Alvar, Alvar Aalto in His Own Words, ed. by Aalto, Alvar and Schildt, Göran, (New York: Random House Incorporated, 1998).

112 Coulter, Nicola and Rushbrook, Sophie, ‘Playfulness in CAT’ in Reformulation, Winter 2010, Issue 35. pp.24-27.

113 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 345.

114 Ruskin, J, Elements of Drawing.

44

45

46

Conclusion; Surrounding the creativity that lies within an architectural design process, it has emerged that in order for this creativity to be fully realised in the resolution of a final proposition, the process of its becoming must be attended to. This comprehension resonates with the notion that to facilitate movements of creative growth, actions of design arise “with no predetermined outcome but with the intention to be transformative”.115 In this way, we can observe the design process as dialogic whereby through the conception of the idea, of the ‘narrative’, the maker is continually engaged in exploits that both fluctuate and permeate “between discursive and practical consciousness, […] both in the experience of the individual agent and […] in [the] different contexts of social activity”.116 Ultimately, this exposes that there is not one explicit way of working in the production of architectural proposition, but rather it is the conception of a generative or dynamic process that allows for conversation to take place and underpins the efficacy of a final output.

This concept corresponds with Ingold’s epistemological research and the way we gain knowledge from ’thinking through making’. It champions a framework for a way of working where things do not become prescriptive, but instead, allow design to be used as a means to explore various perceptions and preconceptions through an interpretation of experiences of the built environment.117 Such architectural movements can be observed as creative engagements within the world that continue to satisfy Ingold’s ‘dwelling perspective’ through which “human beings do not construct the world in a certain way by virtue of what they are, but by virtue of their own conceptions of the possibilities of being. And these possibilities are limited only by the power of the imagination”.118 Yet it is the increasing preoccupation with the image and architecture as a static product that practice relays dangerous connotations of repetition. This ideology suggests that ‘practice makes perfect’, where architectural practice becomes “a matter of refining particular stylistic or technical tropes over time and applying them to any given context without real concern for the particular”.119 In this way, “contemporary icons impose standard formal solutions with little regard for local conditions, because it is these solutions that constitute the architect’s signature”120 and a false economy that points towards a consumerist approach to architecture as a brand entity.

As a reflection of the current state of the profession, this echoes the work of ‘Spatial

115 Awan, Schneider and Till, Spatial Agency, p. 29.

116 Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, (California: University of California Press, 1984), p. 4.

117 Brown, Robert and Moreau, Denitza, ‘Through the Looking Glass’, in Research By Design, Delft, (Netherlands: Delft University Press Satellite, 2000), pp. 145 – 148.

118 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 177.

119 Awan, Schneider and Till, Spatial Agency, p. 29.

120 Ibid.

47

48

Agency’ where the assessment of architecture and the culture that surrounds it is “expressed through reviews, awards and publications”;121 implying that “in reality, the productions of […] elite architects perpetuate the myth of the power of individual agency, and the glamour of their products masks the way that the vast majority of architectural production is in the thrall of economic and political forces”.122 Arguably, with regards to these findings, there is no longevity in this paradoxical production of architecture as it lacks the engagement with the lives of individuals in the world today. This widespread model strongly contradicts the way this study advocates the embodiment of the creative movements as a progressive and liberal working process.

Instead, it becomes a one-dimensional, monologic process, sacrificing creativity in pursuit of the image and ensuring that the interaction with any authentic creativity is disregarded. Not only does this seem to suggest an unsustainable practice, but it also appears to limit the dialogue of such working processes with the individual development of the architect.

However, rather than abiding to the fashions of the profession, this inquiry has suggested an alternative working model where the locus of creativity comes from within. In this instance, architects “do not import their ideas, plans or mental representations into the world”;123 rather they emerge through an embodiment of creativity, of the movements that gave rise to them.124 This means “the forms people build, whether in the imagination or on the ground, arise within the current of their involved activity, in the specific relational contexts of their practical engagement with their surroundings.”125 In this way, engagements with the world and the restructuring of reality can be observed as “an essential part of every[day] cultural activity [that] may also be seen as a paradigm for the creation of individual identity”.126 Perhaps this pertains to a shift in worldview from the current obsession with the way that brand and image affect the economy to one that more implicitly reflects our desires to prioritise values outside reference of the economic market, namely those of social, environmental and ethical justice”127 which have direct implications on the way we dwell.

Ultimately, this notion has a significant effect not only with our built environment and the subsequent integrity of the architectural proposition, but also with the longevity of the continually evolving creative function of the maker and their ability to make sense of their own learning practice.

121 Awan, Schneider and Till, Spatial Agency, p. 27.

122 Ibid, p. 31.

123 Ingold, T, Perception of the Environment, p. 186.

124 Ibid, p. 345.

125 Ibid, p. 186.

126 Guss, David, To Weave and Sing: Art, Symbol, and Narrative in the South American Rainforest, (California: University of California Press, 1990), p. 169.

127 Awan, Schneider and Till, Spatial Agency, p. 28.

49

50

Bibliography; Books; Aalto, Alvar, Alvar Aalto in His Own Words, ed. by Aalto, Alvar and Schildt, GĂśran, (New York: Random House Incorporated, 1998).

Arnheim, Rudolph, New Essays on the Psychology of Art, (California: University of California Press, 1986).

Awan, Nishat, Schneider Tatjana and Till, Jeremy, Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture, (London: Routledge, 2011).

Bachelard, Gaston, The Poetics of Space, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992).

Barad, Karen, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, (Durham NC: Duke University Press, 2007).

Benhabid, Seyla, Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics, (Oxford: Psychology Press, 1992).

Bloomer, Kent C, Moore, Charles W and Yudell, Robert J, Body, Memory, and Architecture, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1978). de Botton, Alain, The Architecture of Happiness, (New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2008).

Deleuze, Gilles, and FĂŠlix Guttari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, (London: Continuum, 2004).

Dewey, John, The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-1953, Volume 10: 1934, Art as Experience, ed. by Boydston, Jo Ann and Simon, Harriet Furst, (Illinois: SIU Press, 2008).

Ehmann, Sven, Borges, Sofia and Klanten, Robert, Rock the Shack: The Architecture of Cabins, Cocoons and Hide-Outs, (Berlin: Gestalten, 2013).

Freire, Paulo, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, (London: Continuum, 1986).

Gell, Alfred, Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, (California: University of California Press, 1984).

Goodman, Nelson, Ways of Worldmaking, (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1978).

Guss, David, To Weave and Sing: Art, Symbol, and Narrative in the South American Rainforest, (California: University of California Press, 1990).

Holl, Steven, Questions of Perception: Phenomenology of Architecture, (California: William Stout, 2006).

Ingold, Tim, Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, (London: Routledge, 2013).

51

Ingold, Tim, The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, (London: Routledge, 2010).

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, Phenomenology of Perception, (East Sussex: Psychology Press, 2002).

Pallasmaa, Juhani, The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses (Third Edition), (Chichester: Wiley, 2012).

Pallasmaa, Juhani, The Thinking Hand; Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture, (Chichester: Wiley, 2009).

Pelletier, Louise and Pérez-Gómez, Alberto, Architecture, Ethics, and Technology, (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press - MQUP, 1994).

Pollan, Michael, A Place of My Own: The Architecture of Daydreams, (New York: Penguin Group US, 2008).

Pye, David, The Nature and Art of Workmanship, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

Rawson, Philip, Seeing Through Drawing, (London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1979).

Relph, Edward, Place and Placelessness: Volume 1 of Research in planning and design, (London: Pion Ltd, 1976).

Ruskin, John, The Elements of Drawing: In Three Letters to Beginners, (London: Smith, Elder, & Company, 1857).

Stevens, Garry, The Favored Circle, (Cambridge [USA]: MIT Press, 2002).

Taylor, Charles, The Ethics of Authenticity, (Cambridge [USA]: Harvard University Press, 1991).

Till, Jeremy, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge [USA]: MIT Press, 2009).

Zumthor, Peter, Atmospheres: Architectural Environments - Surrounding Objects, (Basel: Birkhauser, 2006).

Zumthor, Peter, Thinking Architecture (Third Expanded Edition), (Basel: Birkhauser, 2010).

Articles & Journals; Beardsley, Monroe. C, ‘On the Creation of Art’ in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 23, No. 3, (Spring, 1965), pp. 291-304.

Brown, Robert and Moreau, Denitza, ‘Finding Your Way in the Dark’, Brighton University: Shared Visions Conference, (2002). (Available: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/ palatine/shared-visions-conference-brown-paper.pdf. [Last accessed 06th April 2014.])

Brown, Robert and Moreau, Denitza, ‘Through the Looking Glass’, in Research By Design, Delft, (Netherlands: Delft University Press Satellite, 2000), pp. 145 – 148.

Coulter, Nicola and Rushbrook, Sophie, Coulter, ‘Playfulness in CAT’ in Reformulation, Winter 2010, Issue 35. pp.24-27.

52

Ecker, David. W, ‘The Artistic Process as Qualitative Problem Solving’ in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Spring, 1963), pp. 283-290.

Feigenberg, Alan, ‘Learn to Teach and Teaching to Learn’ in Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy. ed. by Thomas. A Dutton, (New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1991), Pg. 265-279.

Gatt, Caroline and Ingold, Tim, ‘From Description to Correspondence: Anthropology in Real Time’ in Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice. ed. by Gunn, Wendy, Otto, Ton and Smith, Rachel Charlotte, (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), pp. 139-158.

Gaut, Berys, ‘The Philosophy of Creativity’ in Philosophy Compass, Volume 5, Issue 12, December 2010, pp. 1034–1046.

Hale, Jonathan, ‘Gottfried Semper’s Primitive Hut: Duration, Construction and Self-Creation’, in Primitive: Original Matters in Architecture. ed. by Jo Odgers, Flora Samuel and Adam Sharr, (London: Routledge, 2006), Pg. 55-62.

Henderson, Kathryn, ‘Achieving legitimacy: visual discourses in engineering design and green building code development’ in Building Research & Information, Volume 35, Issue 1, (2007), pp.

6-17.

Ingold, Tim, ‘Bringing Things Back to Life: Creative Entanglements in a World of Materials’, (NCRM Working Paper), Realities / Morgan Centre, University of Manchester, (2010).

(Available: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/1306/1/0510_creative_entanglements.pdf [Last accessed 04th February 2015.])

Otto, Ton and Smith, Rachel Charlotte, ‘Design Anthropology: A Distinct Style of Knowing’ in Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice. ed. by Gunn, Wendy, Otto, Ton and Smith, Rachel Charlotte, (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), pp. 1-32.

Rosenberg, Terry, ‘New Beginnings and Monstrous Births: Notes towards an appreciation of ideational drawing’ in Writing on Drawing: Essays on Drawing Practice and Research. ed. by Steve Garner, (Bristol: Intellect, 2008.), pp. 109-124.

Talbot, Richard, ‘Drawing Connections in Writing on Drawing: Essays on Drawing, Practice and Research. ed. by Steve Garner, (Bristol: Intellect, 2008.), pp. 43-57.

Taylor, Mark. C, ‘Deregulation’ in Architectural Laboratories. ed. by Greg Lynn and Hani Rahid, (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2003).

Tidwell, Philip, ‘Place, Memory and the Architectural Image’, in Archipelagpo: Essays on Architecture. ed. by Peter MacKeith, (Helsinki: Rakennustieto, 2006), Pg. 148-157.

Vygotsky, Lev. S, ‘Imagination and Creativity in Childhood’ in Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1 (January–February 2004), Pg. 7-97.

Willenbrock, Laura. L, ‘An undergraduate Voice in Architectural Education’ in Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy. ed. by Thomas. A Dutton, (New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1991), Pg. 97-121.

Zumthor, Peter, ‘Body and Image’, in Archipelago: Essays on Architecture. ed. by Peter MacKeith, (Helsinki: Rakennustieto, 2006), Pg. 200-211.

53

Webpages; Change.org. (2014). Petition against Zaha Hadid’s Tokyo Olympic Stadium. Available: https:// www.change.org/p/%E6%96%87%E9%83%A8%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6%E7%9C%81-%E6% 97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%82%B9%E3%83%9D%E3%83%BC%E3%83%84%E6%8C%AF%E8 %88%88%E3%82%BB%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC-%E7%A5%9E%E5%AE%AE%E. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

Howarth, Dan. Dezeen Magazine. (2014). Zaha Hadid says Tokyo stadium criticism is “embarrassing” for Japanese architects. Available: http://www.dezeen.com/2014/12/08/zahahadid-tokyo-2020-olympic-stadium-criticism-japanese-architects/. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

Manaugh, Geoff. Gizmondo. (2014). Frank Gehry Is Still the World’s Worst Living Architect.

Available: http://gizmodo.com/frank-gehry-is-still-the-worlds-worst-living-architect-1523113249.

Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

Pallister, James. Architects’ Journal. (2012). Next year’s President’s Medals should reward real life briefs. Available: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/next-years-presidents-medals-shouldreward-real-life-briefs/8626520.article. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

Quirk, Vanessa. Arch Daily. (2014). Zaha Hadid on Worker Deaths in Qatar: “It’s Not My Duty As an Architect”. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/480990/zaha-hadid-on-worker-deaths-inqatar-it-s-not-my-duty-as-an-architect/. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

Rosenfield, Karissa. Arch Daily. (2014). Toyo Ito and Fumihiko Maki Petition Against Zaha Hadid’s Tokyo Olympic Stadium. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/506597/toyo-ito-andfumihiko-maki-petition-against-zaha-hadid-s-tokyo-olympic-stadium/. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

Schumacher, Patrick. The Architectural Review. (2012). Schumacher Slams British Architectural Education. Available: http://www.architectural-review.com/view/overview/ar-exclusiveschumacher-slams-british-architectural-education/8625659.article. Last accessed 10th Jan 2015.

Video; Institute for Northern Culture. (2013). Ingold - Thinking through Making. [Online Video]. 31 October. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygne72-4zyo. [Accessed: 29 December 2014].

International Cognition & Culture Institute. (2010). Tim Ingold - To Learn is to Improvise a Movement Along a Way of Life. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaaPaKN5o. [Accessed: 26th January 2015].

Lecture; Humphreys, Andrew, What Have You Done for me Lately? (An event discussing the recent work from Plymouth University’s School of Architecture, and the recent rise in its status), Plymouth University, 26th February, 2014.

Ferguson, George, PADS Lecture Series 2014/2015, Plymouth University, 26th January, 2015.

54

Image Credits; Figure 1; Warn, Sam, Fog Bridge by Fujiko Nakaya; p. 11.

Figure 2; Unknown, Untitled, [Available at: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ee/fb/4c/ eefb4c411e380b70cd31234aa16d9b82.jpg]; pg. 13.

Figure 3; Edinburgh Collage of Art, MMP work on show at the ECA Degree Show 2014; p. 14.

Figure 4; Kastler, Amandine, The Cabinet Of Curiosities; p. 18.

Figure 5; Pollan, Michael, Writing House; p. 20.

Figure 6; Author, Japan Summer Workshop 2014; p. 26.

Figure 7; Author, RIBA Journal Collection; p. 29.

Figure 8; Tress, Arthur, ‘Daymares’ Collection; p. 30.

Figure 9; Diller, Scofidio + Renfro, ‘The Slow House’ - Concept Drawing; p. 38.

Figure 10; Diller, Scofidio + Renfro, ‘The Slow House’ - Concept Model; p. 39.

Figure 11; Jarret Bruno, ‘Salammbo’ – Auguste Rodin; p. 41.

Figure 12; Aalto, Alvar, ‘Villa Mairea’ – Conceptual Sketches, p. 43.

Figure 13; Padgett, Laura, Zumthor Residence, July 2005; p. 48.

55